On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 1:37 PM Consus <con...@ftml.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 05:10:14PM +0200, Oddmund G. wrote: > > I know all this, Ottavio. I have been using GNU+Linux since 1994 after > > several years with Ultrix/VMS/OpenVMS @DEC: Slackware in the beginning, then > > Debian until the forced introduction of systemd and the rest of the crap > > being considered as 'much better' and 'mandatory'. > > Because systemd is good enough "base tools suite". Think of it as a base > system like OpenBSD provides. It has a _lot_ of issues with reliability, > consistency and whatever, but simply put, other Linux folks failed to > provide similar tools. Maybe someday someone will make something better.
I think that thinking of it this way would be some kind of mistake: Last I checked, systemd was not modular, was poorly documented, exhibited incompatibilities with basically all historical interfaces, and had introduced a variety of boot-time race conditions (which mostly hit people who tried to change the configuration from the default). These are all solvable problems, but OpenBSD is not the only distribution which suffers from a lack of competent contributions. I don't think Linux is particularly doomed -- computer systems tend to stick around far longer than most sales pitches would have you believe. But these are concerning issues. But that's also why these sorts of discussions tend to be fairly worthless. While there are attractive things (for some use cases) about systemd, the likelihood of a competent port to OpenBSD (which addresses the above listed problems) isn't something anyone is volunteering for. It would be a lot of work -- possibly a complete rewrite and more work than anyone has put into systemd to date. -- Raul
